ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Random-effects psychophysics for studying individual differences in perception and cognition.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In modern psychological science, many researchers use psychophysical tasks to study individual differences in perception, attention, aging, and personality. Psychophysics, however, traditionally uses designs with a great many trials and few individuals. These designs are inappropriate for individual-difference studies. Here, we develop a random-intercept psychophysics that jointly models variation across trials and individuals within a Bayesian hierarchical framework. We show that the model is ideal for measuring thresholds in small-trial designs. Because the model jointly accounts for variation across trials and individuals, it provides an assessment of correlation across tasks without the pernicious attenuation caused by trial noise. The resulting correlations are accompanied by measures of uncertainty that reflect both the number of trials per individual and the number of individuals. Because the framework is Bayesian, it is flexible, and we leverage this flexibility in two ways: First, we place factor models on the thresholds themselves, demonstrating how the structure of individual differences across a battery of tasks may be assessed. Second, we develop a custom-tailored psychophysical model for assessing whether stimulation is subliminal or superliminal. The threshold divides at chance-performance form above-chance performance, and the approach serves as a principled approach for assessing truly subliminal priming.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.